Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mtaylor

New US carrier to be named for a WWII hero, not a president

Recommended Posts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m curious the backstory behind naming a super carrier after Miller.  Up until now, heroic and notable naval and marine corps personnel were honored by having destroyers and frigates named for them. Including more than a few Medal of Honor recipients and people of color.  Not sure how/why Miller was bumped to the top of the list of heroic figures, but it seems odd. On another site someone suggested it would have been more appropriate to name the lead ship of the new class of FFGs after Miller, I think I agree.

 

FWIW,

 

Keith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen that thread also, as I am a member on that forum, as well. And, normally I would be in agreement with naming a new FFG class after Miller or even another ARLEIGH BURKE DDG. But, to be quite honest, I've had about one too many carriers named JFK, etc. While I fully understand the current naming scheme the Navy uses for selecting ship names, I won't say that I personally agree with it. When submarines started taking on state names, I lost interest. And how John Stennis ever became the name of a CVAN I'll never know!!!

 

Since it appears that the conventional naming of USN ships has, in modern times, been turned on it's head, why NOT name the next CVAN after Miller? He's certainly deserving of it.

 

Just my thoughts on the subject, nothing more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Hank. Up until the advent of the Nimitz-class, naming carriers after persons was rare. Now of course it is the norm. I much prefer the tradition of the old convention of naming carriers after historical battles (e.g. Coral Sea, Bunker Hill) or previous warships (e.g. Enterprise, Wasp).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Chris! To expound on this topic of ship's naming conventions, etc. a bit - I think had the Navy (yeah, let's blame THEM, since none of us can point a finger to the actual members of Congress or other disenchanted citizens who've managed to muddy the naming waters and have gotten everything bass-ackwards!) not begun the presidential carrier naming parade in the mid-40s with FDR, we would have seen modern carriers named as before - historical battles/famous ships. With the demise of the battleship, there was a void in what type of ship to honor states and this originally fell to the nuclear powered guided missile cruisers of the -'70s. But, then those ships were reclassified (and subsequently decommissioned) and the next thing you know, NORTH CAROLINA is now a sub!!!! Go figure, right?

 

So, if there is no real rhyme or reason as to what ship is named what for who, then DORIS MILLER makes perfect sense as CV(A)N-81. OK, I'm working on borrowed change here - my 2 cents is way-past spent (and today with the penny being non-copper, not worth a plug nickel:omg:!!!)

 

Hank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe there was a destroyer named after Doris Miller previously. 

 

The vessels of the Navy shall be named by the Secretary of the Navy under direction of the President according to the following rule: Sailing-vessels of the first class shall be named after the States of the Union, those of the second class after the rivers, those of the third class after the principal cities and towns and those of the fourth class as the President may direct.

13 USC 1531 (1862)
Since 1862, many changes in the naming conventions have occurred for a variety of reasons and many exceptions have been made to the existing rules. Since 1968, carriers have been named for presidents, beginning with the JFK, although exceptions have been the rule. From all indications in practice, the Secretary of the Navy makes the name call and, given the increasing politicizing of the DOD, a lot of names seem to be chosen to satisfy the dictates of the political party of the presidential administration that's in power at the time of the naming. Remarkably, we have in recent years seen ships, including the George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, named for living persons, which previously was never done. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob Cleek wrote: 

Quote

I believe there was a destroyer named after Doris Miller previously. 

Bob, you are correct - USS MILLER (DE-1091) KNOX class destroyer escort. Named for Doris (Dorie) Miller - commissioned 1973-decommissioned 1991.

 

However, I like the prospect of this carrier NOT following the current trend as we've both stated in our separate postings.

 

Hank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Hank said:

I like the prospect of this carrier NOT following the current trend as we've both stated in our separate postings.

I much preferred the earlier practice of naming carriers after famous sailing ships of the early US Navy. It's all a hodge-podge these days. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give the sailor his due and the hell with protocol. He deserves it, it took decades to honor the Tuskegee airmen I might add with one of the best records ever.

Yes Miller was perceived as  just a lowly black cook or steward, but he represents the thousands of servicemen who went above and beyond let them have a day in the sun.

I understand the pecking order of names and ships but it should not be set in concrete. We cannot let politics interfere with our heros 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick note that politics discussion is not allowed on site. I am clearing up any references above. No one pushed it but several comments could have invited response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the USS Carl Vinson was the first US Naval Vessel named for a person who was still alive although he passed away prior to commissioning. His wife did the honors at the Commissioning ceremony. 

Edited by Osmosis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup

 

In the late 1960's there was a fight between the Director, Division of Naval Reactors, US Atomic Energy Commission, aka Admiral Rickover and the McNanara DOD systems analysis people to determine if future large attack carriers would be nuclear powered.  This took place during the development of the two reactor Nimitz class carrier.  

 

Congress sided with Rickover, mandating that future capital ships (carriers) would be nuclear powered.  Carl Vinson was a key member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee.

 

I was a very junior Naval Officer serving in Rickover's Naval Reactors organization when this happened.  

 

Roger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roger,

I appreciate your (and John Allen's) comments - and, your Nuclear Naval service! As it is, politics seems to find its way into much of everyday life today, let alone naming of U.S.N. warships.

So, now all we have to worry about is how the Navy is going to find the money to adapt CVA(N)-79 and newer units to the F-35C fighter variant as none of these ships was appropriated by Congress to support this fighter. According to USNI, there are eight major changes that will have to be made in order for these ships to operate and maintain this variation of the basic F-35 airframe and this costs money (not yet appropriated).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Hank said:

as none of these ships was appropriated by Congress to support this fighter.

Call me stupid I suppose. What alterations are need to jet equipped aircraft carriers to allow them to handle jet aircraft modified/designed to operate on aircraft carriers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

About us

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research

SSL Secured

Your security is important for us so this Website is SSL-Secured

NRG Mailing Address

Nautical Research Guild
237 South Lincoln Street
Westmont IL, 60559-1917

About the NRG

If you enjoy building ship models that are historically accurate as well as beautiful, then The Nautical Research Guild (NRG) is just right for you.

The Guild is a non-profit educational organization whose mission is to “Advance Ship Modeling Through Research”. We provide support to our members in their efforts to raise the quality of their model ships.

The Nautical Research Guild has published our world-renowned quarterly magazine, The Nautical Research Journal, since 1955. The pages of the Journal are full of articles by accomplished ship modelers who show you how they create those exquisite details on their models, and by maritime historians who show you the correct details to build. The Journal is available in both print and digital editions. Go to the NRG web site (www.thenrg.org) to download a complimentary digital copy of the Journal. The NRG also publishes plan sets, books and compilations of back issues of the Journal and the former Ships in Scale and Model Ship Builder magazines.

Our Emblem

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research
×
×
  • Create New...